Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, vs Randi Mahalakshmi, on 16 October, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1 HCJ & RRR,J
W.P.No.3888 of 2025
APHC010065182025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 3888/2025
Between:
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Randi Mahalakshmi ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J U M V PRASAD (S C for LIC) Counsel for the Respondent:
1. C V R RUDRA PRASAD 2 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.3888 of 2025 The Court made the following order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The son of the respondent had obtained a Life Insurance policy, dated 15.12.2007, which was revived on 13.03.2010, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He had also taken another policy, dated 28.03.2010, for Rs.1,87,500/- showing the respondent herein as the nominee. Subsequently, the son of the respondent took another policy, dated 19.11.2010, for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- showing his father as the nominee. However, no claim is said to have been made against this policy.
3. The son of the respondent passed away on 30.07.2011. After his death, the respondent filed claims for payment of the compensation and sum assured. The petitioner, took the stand that the son of the respondent had been suffering from Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, at the time of obtaining the policies, and had suppressed this material fact, when he obtained the policies. On this ground, the petitioner repudiated the claims of the respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, the respondent had initially filed an appeal within the petitioner company. As no payments were being made, the respondent had approached the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam, by way of C.C.No.88 of 2014, for a direction to pay the assured sum under the polices with interest besides compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The 3 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.3888 of 2025 petitioner resisted the claim on the ground that the son of the respondent was aware of the life threatening disease, when he took the policies and marked two documents as Exs.B1 and B2. These documents are supposed to be attested copies of discharge summaries of Yasoda Hospital. However, the District Consumer Forum, by an order dated 28.04.2016, rejected the said evidence and partly allowed the claim of the respondent.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, had approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Vijayawada, by way of F.A.No.288 of 2016 which also came to be dismissed on 17.04.2019. Against this order, the petitioner, after depositing 50% of the award had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, by way of Revision Petition No.1721 of 2019. Along with this petition, the petitioner had also filed an interim application for seeking stay of further proceedings. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, directed deposit of entire balance amount with the District Forum. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissed R.P.No.1721 of 2019 on 18.10.2024 concurring with the finding of the State Commission. Apart from this, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had also pointed out that the petitioner, which was duty bound to provide all material information in respect of policy to the insured, had not complied with this requirement.
4 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.3888 of 2025
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the petitioner has approached this Court.
7. Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the three adjudicating authorities, had rejected the discharge summaries produced by the petitioner and such a rejection was not proper. He would contend that this was a case of suppression of information, which materially effects the Life Insurance policies itself and no money is payable.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the discharge summaries marked as Exs.B1 and B.2 could not have been rejected, did not choose to file these two documents before this Court. Further, as pointed out by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner as well as the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, the documents do not inspire any confidence, as the said documents apparently did not contain the letter heads of the hospital or proper signature of the doctors who are supposed to have issued these discharge summaries.
9. In the light of these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the Consumer Redressal Forum. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed without costs.
5 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.3888 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS
6 HCJ & RRR,J
W.P.No.3888 of 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3888 of 2025 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Dated:16.10.2025 RJS 7 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.3888 of 2025